• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Southampton spying compendium thread

The coach of Canada's Olympic WNT was banned by FIFA for a year after getting an analyst to spy on the opposition.

It's a serious offence, akin to doping or fielding ineligible players. Absolutely irrelevant what subsequently happened on the pitch, the intent to gain an illegal advantage is all that matters.

If they can prove it - and it seems likely that they can - then the results of the affected games have to be voided. Boro would then effectively get to the final via a 6-0 aggregate win, and Eckert would face a lengthy ban if it's proven that he was involved.
 

not spavin said:
The coach of Canada's Olympic WNT was banned by FIFA for a year after getting an analyst to spy on the opposition.

It's a serious offence, akin to doping or fielding ineligible players. Absolutely irrelevant what subsequently happened on the pitch, the intent to gain an illegal advantage is all that matters.

If they can prove it - and it seems likely that they can - then the results of the affected games have to be voided. Boro would then effectively get to the final via a 6-0 aggregate win, and Eckert would face a lengthy ban if it's proven that he was involved.
Click to expand...

Correct about Canada WNT ban. It is serious stuff.

Soton gaffer running away from the media session doesn't look good.
 
Horley Chorley said:
Just my opinion.

I reckon the findings will be, that Southampton did indeed break the rules, though their malpractice didn't unduly affect the outcome of their two play off games against Boro, and therefore, they'll be permitted to play in the final.

There could still be a sting in the tail though. . .

As well as a fine, (possibly as much as £500,000) they'll be demoted to the Championship, IF they win the final, against Hull.
Click to expand...
It will be rediculous if they let a pointless final take place then demote Southampton.

So thats likely the option they’ll take.
 
123SunTan said:
There's no downside for the EFL to postpone the final. Just the added global publicity and uptick in TV revenues would be worth it for the league.
Click to expand...
I would imagine there are massive financial complications for the EFL to postpone the final, particularly in relation to partner organisations who’ve paid and planned to have ventures and offerings available on the day.
 
Big Sharp Teeth said:
I would imagine there are massive financial complications for the EFL to postpone the final, particularly in relation to partner organisations who’ve paid and planned to have ventures and offerings available on the day.
Click to expand...

Partners will do even better if more eyeballs on the match globally.

it's already marketed as one of the most important matches of the football world, this would take it even higher.
 
SPUFF said:
It will be rediculous if they let a pointless final take place then demote Southampton.

So thats likely the option they’ll take.
Click to expand...
I think they may well come to the conclusion, that over two legs (and especially in the first leg play off game) Boro had (and squandered) more than enough chances to have won the tie, therefore, Southampton's transgression, didn't unduly impact the outcome of the tie.
 
Horley Chorley said:
I think they may well come to the conclusion, that over two legs (and especially in the first leg play off game) Boro had (and squandered) more than enough chances to have won the tie, therefore, Southampton's transgression, didn't unduly impact the outcome of the tie.
Click to expand...

Inside the investigation, Boro will tell EFL investigators how they had to change their tactics and starting XI, etc. etc.
Alan Browne will testify that he was dropped from the Starting XI.


Stakes are so high.
 
Horley Chorley said:
I think they may well come to the conclusion, that over two legs (and especially in the first leg play off game) Boro had (and squandered) more than enough chances to have won the tie, therefore, Southampton's transgression, didn't unduly impact the outcome of the tie.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's relevant. If someone takes steriods in the oylimpcs, but doesnt run a PB, it does negate the fact they cheated. They are hoyed out. IF Boro can prove they've cheated, which looks pretty nailed on they can, Southampton have to be shot out. The impact on the game is immaterial
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top